This may be an ignorant comment but isn't curry kinda thornton-lite - i.e chucker w/ tunnel vision and no d (and I am warming up to rivers). If that is the case, why not trade 10 and ariza to sac for 5 and thornton's bad contract (esp if y'all are thinking about andray's bad contract). Then, take drummond at 5. (Yeah, I know that this would never happen in a million years) ...but you have two tall anchors and your instant offense off the bench.
« Notes and Video From the Hornets Pre-Draft Workouts
Anthony Davis: For All My Gamers Out There »
In the NO Podcast Episode 69, Dude: A cagey front office
Michael and I talk about how the front office won’t say they are taking Anthony Davis – and then we talk about all the people they could possibly take at 10. Michael gets heated about Kendall Marshall and Austin Rivers, and I still have a man-crush on Sullinger but have a a few other guys I wouldn’t mind seeing in creole blue.
Enjoy the Podcast! Want it on Itunes?
Michael, In a recent tweet you said Rivers can be a more coachable Monta Ellis. In last week's podcast, you said at worst Lillard is a 6th or 7th man and a Lou Williams type. You say you absolutely don't want Lillard in this week's podcast which doesn't make sense based on this worst case scenerio that you have given him. It doesn't quite add up, especially since you have argued that you would take the double instead of trying to swing for a home run. A Lou Williams comparison is a nice double in my opinion and a good "chucker" for the Anthony Davis Era. I told you I was warming up to the idea of Rivers and I like Marshall as well. I personally would be fine with either Sullinger, Rivers, Lillard, or Marshall. My preference right now is probably Sullinger due to the 2013 free agent PG class(CP3, Curry, Jennings).
To me there is a HUGE difference between Ellis and Mo Williams- I said Mo Williams in the podcast. I don't hate Lillard, I just am saying that I don't get how people are over the moon with this guy and acting like he is Russell Westbrook. I would take him over several guys that the Hornets are considering like Moultrie, Zeller, Ross, and Lamb but I just prefer Rivers and Marshall. Now, if those two (and Sullinger) are all gone, take Lillard. But at least two of those guys will be there, so pass. And I am 100% there on the strategy of Sullinger plus adding a 2013 PG. Jennings to me is best case scenario, even if we have to overpay a bit- 4 years/42 million
Sullinger: Sullinger is a technician down low that has shown an ability to score in the post in a variety of ways. He's wide body, show's a decent mid range jumper that could be extended to near 3 point range. He's a good, not great, rebounder who struggles to get his shot. Why we shouldn't draft Sullinger: 1.) His biggest strength, his ability to score in the low post, will be somewhat negated vs. long players in the NBA. I was so-so on Sullinger, until I watched him (in person) struggle like crazy to get decent looks against two future NBA players in Robinson and the 7'0 Withy for Kansas. He was held to 13 points on 5-19 shooting. Withy blocked 7 shots, many vs. Sullinger, and altered many other shots. There were always questions about Sullinger, an undersized below the rim player, would be able to get his shot off in the NBA. He was exposed by James Withy and Thomas Robinson; How is he supposed to get a shot off vs. Gasol/Bynum? Ibaka/Perkins? We are trying to beat the contenders in the West, not the Rockets & Suns. 2.) He's a liability on defense. Because he is undersized and not a great leaper, he will struggle to block shots. His big body does offer some value defending the low post, but skilled post players such as Gasol or Duncan will eat him alive despite not being able to get low post position on him by simply shooting over him. He's heavy footed and slow on his rotations on defense, and the NBA has become a majority pick n roll league. Ohio St. was a good defensive team with him in the middle, but against NBA competition those weaknesses are too easily exposed. If you watched the way Kendrick Perkins was exposed on the pick and roll and vs. smaller lineups in the first two games of the Spurs-Thunder series, you can see how this would be a liability for Sullinger (and Perkins, similar in foot speed, is twice the defender Sullinger is). He is a player with little flexibility, and IMO is strictly a matchup type player (think how Aaron Gray played a ton vs. Dwight Howard or Bynum, but almost never against anyone else. Sullinger could play more than that, but against some teams I could see him not being able to stay on the court.). We can get a building block player with this 10th pick. Why settle for a rotation guy? 3.) He doesn't play hard all the time and struggles with his conditioning. People try to compare him to Kevin Love, but that's ridiculous. First of all, Love is all of 6'10. Sullinger is hoping to measure at 6'8. Love has completely maxed out his potential. He busted his ass to be as good as he is. Can anybody realistically see Sully drop down to 235? Improve his shot enough to win the 3 point shootout? Average 14 rebounds a game? I don't see someone with his questionable work ethic doing that. He did lose some weight last season, but his conditioning and motor have been questioned. If we are going to draft someone with all of the question marks and limitations talked about previously, shouldn't we at least get a player who plays hard all the time and will stay in shape???? Marshall: Great floor leader. Unbelievable passer. Long at 6'4 and can create good looks across the board for his teammates. Is an average 3 point shooter who showed some improvement later in the year. Is a "B" athlete who will struggle to get to the rim off the dribble in the NBA and will be an absolute disaster defensively. Why we shouldn't draft Marshall: 1.) He's a bad fit for our offense. Eric Gordon was the 2nd most efficient player in the NBA running the pick and roll in '10-11. Chris Paul was 1st. Our offense will be centered around a Gordon-Davis pick and roll scheme. Marshall was the floor general at UNC. He always had the ball in his hands. He was able to get the ball to his talented teammates in their spots by controlling the tempo of the game. If Eric Gordon will be running pick and roll most of the time, Marshall has become completely useless. He is not a dead on spot up shooter, he won't be able to recieve the kick and drive to the rim. His only "special" gift, his ability to control the ball and orchestrate for others, will be taken away. If we have a lineup of Gordon-Aminu/Ariza-Davis-Okafor, who is going to space the floor? You need either your PG or SF to be able to be a threat from three, or they will pack the lane. We need a PG who can simply get the ball to Gordon in the right spot, and knock down open threes. Marshall is NOT that. 2.) He is a nightmare on defense. Marshall is 6'4, and can make up for average foot speed with his length. Problem is, he has below average footspeed. Are you telling me that Kendall Marshall can guard Chris Paul? Rajon Rondo? Tony Parker? Russell Westbrook? We have a chance to be a SPECIAL defensive team with the Unibrow anchoring our back end. If we continually allow penetration unabated at the PG spot therefore breaking down the defense, we will fall to the middle of the pack. If Davis is constantly helping on penetration, we will give up a ton of 2nd chance points because no one will be in position to rebound. 3.) WE CAN DO BETTER! Marshall may be the best PG in the draft, but we have the 10th pick. This draft is full of very good prospects. We have a team full of guys with good skill but are limited athletically. The Hornets need big, strong athletes. OKC has Westbrook, Harden, Durant, Ibaka - all Elite athletes. You want to go to war with them trotting out Sullinger and Marshall?? Athletically they cannot compete with them. That's who we need to strive to beat. We need more length defensively (other than Okafor, we don't have a true center on the roster). We need an athletic wing who can create his own shot (other than Gordon, can anyone else do that?). We need 3 point shooters (We were in the bottom 1/6 of the league in 3 point FGs, and Marco Bellenelli was our best 3 point threat -gag me- and he's a free agent). All of that, and people want us to blow our top 10 pick on these two guys??? No thanks. Think big guys!
I love the idea of drafting Evan Fournier and stashing him in France for a year. The kid plays against real men over there and is leading his pro-team at the tender age of 19. If he came over after next season that would be awesome. Trading down with Rockets would be the best oportunity for that. Our 10th and maybe Jack against their 14th and 16th pick (maybe some filler as well, or Lowry, alöthough I doubt we would get Lowry that cheap) and pick Zeller (draftexpress has him going 14th) or some other decent big there and then take Fournier at 16. That would a great haul from this years draft.
wid the 10th pick if PJ3 is still on the board i wil pick him.....^^,......wat if barnes is still available at 10 wil dell or monty consider picking him?
Vasquez and Marshall are both long, B athlete point guards who cannot get to Tim consistently. Marshall is a better passer. Vasquez is a better scorer. Both have a good feel of how to control the game and very high basketball IQs. Similarly, both are complete liabilities on defense. In fact, I give the edge to vasquez as an athlete. BTW, Vasquez was an all American and won the award as the nations top PG his Sr year. He was the 20th or 21st pick in the draft.
Rivers=Vasquez. Both are tall, tweener, guards with OK athleticism who can't guard smaller quicker PG. Both are best with the ball setting themselves up. (Plenty of sources list Rivers' position as SG, not PG!) Marshall=Best passing PG in years
Player A: Points/Gm.: 7.8 Rebounds/Gm.: 2.6 Ast/Turn 3.0 Player B: Points/Gm.: 15.4 Rebounds/Gm.: 3.4 Ast/Turn 0.9 Player C: Points/Gm.: 19.6 Rebounds/Gm.: 4.6 Ast/Turn 1.9 Here are the stats from the last college year for three players. Which are most comparable? In Points B & C. In Rebounds B & C. In Assist/Turnover Ratio B & C, but it's close. Who are they? A is Marshall, B is Rivers, and C is Vasquez. Rivers is the most comparable to Vasquez, and clearly isn't a PG. Marshall is the least comparable to Vasquez (or Rivers). Marshall is the best passing PG to come out in years.
greivis is a poor choice for camparison on most all fronts. he did not enter college as a pg, and though he was a good passer his decision making was often questioned. he was an all around player who looked to score first. though he put up bigger numbers (we know the limitation of depending on that) after four years in college, he barely snuck into the first round, picked just after quincy pondexter even if you're down on marshall, do you think you should compare him to someone who learned pg who wasn't a better pro prospect than craig bracking and q after 4 years?
Not true at all. Rivers is a much better scoring guard than Vasquez, not to mention more athletic. Vasquez on the other hand is bigger, and a much better passer than Rivers. Both need to work on not turning the ball over, especially Rivers. Vasquez and Marshall are much more comparable. Rivers is more of a tweener.
I am conflicted between these three choices, none of which may be possible: 1. Trading the 10th pick to Houston for Lowry, and trading Jack for a 2012 or 2013 1st Rounder similar to what we (indirectly) gave up to get him, #21. 2. Drafting Sullinger at 10. 3. Drafting Marshall at 10. Lowry is probably the best veteran PG available, hopefully for the Hornet's 10th pick (and hopefully we can still get about a #21 pick for Jack). If not, I think Sullinger is the Carlos Boozer of this draft and Marshall is the best pure PG in the draft, which is the Hornets' position of greatest need. I'd be happy with either one. But, while I am dreaming, how about a Plan B of drafting Sullinger and signing Dragic? If not, I am happy with Marshall. [For the record, I am not on the Rivers bandwagon. In college, Rivers and Marshall were about the same on defense (Marshall has a slight edge). Marshall was one of the best at running an offense and Rivers has yet to do that; Rivers just handled the ball to set himself up. As a scorer Rivers was slightly better, but Marshall scored well when asked to. Rivers may develop into something, but Marshall may bloom into a star.]
what yall think about trading the 1st overall to bobcats for kemba walker, the 2nd overall pick for mkg and next years #1 pick.
the bobcats could give us walker and the keys to the city i will still say no. Best bet is to keep the pick and try and trade with wizards, cavs or even kings move anything other then Davis and Gordon
I think there's a 0% chance that Bobcats would do that trade. Kemba Walker has a bright future, why would you trade that and the #2 for the #1?
If CP3 wants to come back, I'll welcome him back. this is a long term rebuilding project, not a quick fix. If they think Lillard is good enough to be a high end starting PG for a long time, then pick him. But DO NOT pick a PG just to fill s "hole." we have time for stuff like that. Find the best pieces to build long term and fill in the "holes" w short term stop gap type guys until you find a real solution. Teams like Boston, MIami, Chicago, etc need to fill holes. We need talented, A+ athletes who we can build around.
to me marshall is the pick, not to fill a hole (tho we happen to have one at the 1) but because his career portends greatness more than the others who are available at 10. while zeller henson lillard ross look like thay have a good chance to be solid pro's, marshall has always had the look of someone destined for greatness
Screw the possible return of CPaul and get a point. I have a fondness for Damian Lillard. We need someone to put the ball in the bucket and Lilliard IMO has tremendous upside in that regard plus he would benefit from the coaching of Monty. We don't need the headache of reuniting with CPaul.
Chad Ford latest mock draft (6.0) has us taking Sullinger at 10! Heres what Mr. Ford is reporting: Analysis: We’ve been assuming the Hornets would try to fill their hole at point guard here with a player like Damian Lillard or Kendall Marshall, and they might, but the last few days the buzz has been around Sullinger here. I could see why the Hornets would think pairing Davis and Sullinger would be ideal. They complement each other. Thoughts??
bird and lebron had and have diffrent realease to there jum shots nut kidd-chilchrest will dominate and more of a competetor then any player in the draft. i taped all the kentucky games and among alot of the other college games. davis has talent dont get me wrong you cant go wrong with both players. but picking number 1 you have to draft the best player,you cant be stuck on potetial because he might never grow into his body right. i mean he isnt as athletic as howard,garnnet,duncan or bosh. yes he is tall and can jump but he is clumsey and awkward and real skinny,we might put some weight on but the other would scare me off. sf kidd-gilchrist is alreaddy 240 pounds at sf and he will be bigger and better then lebron james by a mile!!!!! its a no brainer really ,go back and watch the tapes then come back and you will see what i saw.
at the same age lebron wasn't great defender or jump shooter he worked on it and had great defensive coach in mike brown and shooting coach he took with miami with in chris jent..lebron didnt weigh more then kidd-gilchrist as well ,lebron worked on his game and kept getting better and better..but on this stage of thier carreer gilchrist is more advanced then james..proven fact and playing high school ball with kyrie irving and a year of college ball halp im sure..but gilchrist is youngest player in draft almost a full year younger then davis. sf gilchrest 6'8'' 242 ponds is as fast as a deer and is a great rebounder and defender and better then james at this young age when james first came in as rookie....its up to the player to show and prove it now!
Will be better than LeBron? LeBron has a better jumpshot. LeBron is a better passer. LeBron is a better rebounder. LeBron is better on defense. He's more versatile. The list goes on and on.
The guy who is saying Davis is clumsy is not paying attention. I am a UK fan, so I watched pretty much all of Davis and MKG's games this year, and both are amazing. MKG makes plays in so many different ways, and I have no doubt that will translate. His goofy shot also goes in often enough. He isn't like Rondo (or the old Rondo). And Davis is coordinated beyond belief. His ability to control passes that are way out of anyone else's range is shocking. You have to pick Davis over MKG because he is already doing things very few can do, and later in the year he was showing more and more stuff they hadn't needed from him before. Sky is the limit.
Some kind of technicality, because the guy played four years: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/41544/damian-lillard
Thanks for the 411. Point still stays the same as in podcast, Rivers was a much better freshman than Lillard and my feeling is that, three years from now, he would be better than Lillard is now if he stayed in school for four years- and ESPECIALLY if he got to play at Weber State. But we will never know for sure, and I respect opinions to the contrary, I just can't get myself to agree with them. If the Hornets draft him, believe me, I will hope that I am wrong.
Looks like Ryan might get his wish. ESPN's mock draft 6.0 has us taking Sullinger at the 10 spot. http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2012/story/_/id/8009612/nba-mock-draft-version-6
If you check out podcast #68, Ryan is against it until I talk him into it. I have been on the train the whole time, as Sullinger is the only big I would be happy with at ten should the Hornets pass on a guard. Also, I might be reading too much into this, but maybe they go big-big because they are targeting a certain guard next summer. Why draft Marshall when you know CP3 is coming back? Yeah, I said it!!!
I think you really underestimate Lillard's ability. I thought this was an interesting comment about him: I was fortunate enough to have been one of Damian's high school coaches (responsible for athletic performance) so I know him a little bit. The biggest thing one must understand about how he is being perceived has nothing to do with his obvious talent per se. He is not an unknown. Damian was probably the best player in California when he graduated from Oakland high, but he was a late comer and didn't have the Austin Rivers resume going into high school. Damian's best year, the team went 8-2 losing, in league, twice to MCylmonds, who was then ranked 10th in the nation. MCylmonds got all of the pub. Damian led a team with no starter over 6'1"( Dame was 5" 11") to the semifinal of the Nor Cal state . He was so good in high school he had the green light and could shoot easily from thirty; and did. Once we asked him to get a few more rebounds and he got 15 the next game and asked the staff, " was that enough?" Oh yeah , and that game he also scored 37. Even at 5' 11", once Damian realized the importance of training; doing ploys, strength conditioning, flexibility work etc., he became a terrific in game time dunker. Against Marin Catholic, as a junior, he started dunking on people in games. He far stronger and much more athletic than Steph Curry, who quite frankly should be ashamed about his lack of muscle. He is wayyy better than Teague because he is more polished and shoots far better. - So if he happened to go to a more big time program and put up similar numbers would you be on his bandwagon?
Lets forget the bobcats fan for a sec, i think its Davis or bust. Its a good podcast i like ryans view on surrounding Gordon and Davis with a pure shooter somebody like a clay thompson, do u guys think he is gettable thru a trade or is he untouchable? Another 1 i also like is putting Davis next to a rugged Center like pek for the timberwolves is he gettable or did Love just boost pek stats up this year. I think they are very gettable pieces with starting lineup of gravy or jack, gordon thompson if he can play the 3 or coming off the bench for aminu, davis and pek. not a awesome starting 5 but i think in time it could be, im not aiming for a championship next season but in 3-4 yeah
sullinger is 280 pf tough,strong,clutch,great leader. davis is bareley 200 pounds,gets pushed off the block,can't create his own shot (all set up by jones and gichrist,great shot,but no post game,is clumbsey an akward,it looks like he is going to trip over his own legs and feet half the time...im sorry but i was trying to be nice saying he has the potential to be a garnett,maybe a bosh but thats being extra kind because bosh attacks the rim andhas low post moves. all he does is shoot jump shots and gets an open lob from gilchrist. im telling you today what you'll know tomarrow davis might turn into a half way decent pro a bosh type but gilchrist is the real deal and if we pass him up it would be this generation when its all said and done teams passing up on jordan
He was a guard in high school, and he averaged 32 points. There has to be some jumpshot creating in there. There is a reason he didn't score was because of how much talent was around him. He could have easily been the best scorer, but he realized he doesn't just have to impact the game on offense. Stop comparing MKG to MJ.
Finally somebody who is actually looking at Davis and his so called "guard skills". He was bad at attacking the basket in college now he's going to turn into an elite player at it when the level of competiton sky rockets. Even the moves he had success on weren't explosive. I've seen more explosiveness in getting to the basket from Drummond which is why I rather him over Davis. That explosiveness and strength at the 5 has way more potential for long term success. MKG has every bit as much potential to be a defensives impact player as Davis and he IMO has more to work with on being an impact player on offense. MKG biggest flaw is the easiest skill to improve at the next level.
That sounds like an excuse people are making to justify building Davis up. How do you know he will ever get back to being "guard like" at the highest level. You don't and making these assumptions are foolish. That's why I'm judging off of what I see. I see a guy that hasn't displayed anything remotely close to "guard skills" at the college level. We've seen bigs like Anthony Randolph that actually showed guard like skills at 6'11 not be able to transition those skills into success at the next level. Why in the world would I make an assumption that a guy who wasn't affective in college performing a skill is going to make the leap against a whole other level of talent.
How do you expect to move as well as he used to when he has had a 7-inch growth spurt? And Kidd-Gilchrist's BIGGEST flaw is his jumpshot.
Does anybody agree with me that that Franky is Bobcats supporter and trying to convince us to draft mkg because they want the brow, sorry champ to bad. Anybody that thinks mkg is better then Davis does not follow basketball
ask who coached them and seen them play ever day,who he had to demend on and who set up all thier plays...he played sf but like lebron is a point forward. davis is a solid player reminds me of a garrnett type almost maybe not as strong yet but one day he could be. but im telling you gilchrist is the real deal,and i never said sullinger was far supior im saying with the 10th pick and gilchrest our front line would be the best youngest pair out there.
If MKG was Ginobili Davis wasn't Duncan. So I think using that against Kidd-Gilchirst is a bad example. I think both these guys have equal chances of becoming franchise changers, both have a huge hill to climb on offense. Like I said Michael issues are historically easier to fix than Davis'.
you cant compair morrison to gilchrist. im telling you kidd-gichrist is the next great player...you will see once he starts playing in the league,i was right
I know this might be wrong to say, but Franky is an idiot. He compared MKG to Jordan, and said Sullinger was a better 4 than Davis.